Sunday, March 8, 2015

Daily Kos Quote of the Morning

Michael L.
Israel shouldn't exist, (0+ / 0-)

and not all Jews are scum.

There.  Simple, isn't it . . .

by Deward Hastings on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 04:45:44 PM PST
Just the opinion of another Democrat.

By the way, I am relieved to know that Deward does not consider all Jews to be scum.

It's nice to know that there are some "good Jews" out there.

{Such an enlightened soul, this one is.}


  1. I remember Deward from back in the day.

    And, it must be noted that not all Deward Hastings are scum.

    Sure, that one is, but not all of them.


  2. Yeah, he was (and probably still is) a one-man antisemite uprating army, to the point where "Another quality Deward Hastings uprate" is probably still one of the most common comment subject lines of all time there.

  3. Just an idiot thinking he is smart. Saying something he would never say in person or in public, except at a meet-up, attended by some of the few regulars there, who are always angry, keeping in role, with the Jewish groupies swooning in the background.

  4. Insert "Palestine" for Israel, and "Arabs" for Jews. That comment would have, what, 57 'hide ratings' by now? And the poster would have likely been banned within minutes, right?

  5. Don't you guys remember.. the comment: "Another Deward Hastings quality uprate"... because everyone knew "Deward" was an anti-Semitic nutjob. The comment above is one of his tamer ones. So, when he would uprate stuff... we would all say "Oh good, another quality Deward Hastings uprate".

  6. And not every moderator/help desk person at DKOS is scum

    oh wait...nevermind

  7. No... no... they pretty much are.

    Do you see all the "Iran Love" going on there.

    Somehow, some way... cheering for a proto fascist theological state that hangs gays from cranes, beats women for attending sporting matches, runs a paramillitary militia to enforce state diktats, has troops involved in a vicious civil war, sponsors terrorist bomhings of innocent people, is racing to get a nuclear weapon and just declared that the Middle East should be Iranian is all of a sudden the cause celebre for the Progressive Movement.

    I will disagree with the comment, that they have achieved this status because they hate Israel because I think that is only a side bonus. I think they have gotten here because they really hate America and want to see us fail and hating the Jews is only a side benefit from hating the West.

    1. Yeah, in the case of Iran, reflexive anti-Americanism would seem to be the driving impulse there.

      Even three or four years ago, I would roll my eyes at the notion that *certain parts* of the Left 'hate America.' But fuck me if it isn't true.

      They're pseudoradical, bizarro Cliven Bundys pounding furiously on their Macbooks about Naomi Wolf's latest conspiracy theory while wearing sweatshop-manufactured Che t-shirts produced by exploited Malaysian women who they agree should be able to make the liberating choice to be forced by law to dress moderately.

    2. *dress modestly.

      I was spell-check-mated again!

  8. Bingo Jay...

    It's goofy. The big problem is not what Mike talks about "Humanitarian Racism" (though there are indeed some elements of that amongst some of the more racist nutjobs of the far Left) but the big problem is that since these groups; Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran etc.. are "sticking it to the man" (meaning the West in general and the U.S. in particular) any thing they do is "progressive". I mean, NONE of those folks will ever discuss what the Palestinian polity supports. NONE of those folks will ever talk about the Iranian Government or Hizbollah's paramilitary control of Lebanon. It just doesn't show up on their radar.

    And it's not because they are racist (though some are) and don't want to hold people to any standards. It's because they simply don't care. As long as those countries/ polities/ groups are against the U.S. well hell... whatever they do is fine. Hence the Judith Butlers of the world who would be in in prison or dead if they lived there, can squawk about how "progressive" Hizbollah and Hamas are despite everything they actually do or stand for. Because whatever they do and/or stand for... simply doesn't matter as long as they "fight the man".

    Look, look at every discussion of Gaza and "Protective Edge". They simply won't discuss that Hamas launched anywhere from 4,500 to 6,000 rockets at Israel. They won't discuss that Hamas takes the aid money they get and have been rearming and building tunnels. They won't talk about the fact that according to public opinion polls only 24.5% of Palestinians (or there about) would support a State where Jews and Arabs have equal rights. It's like the real Palestinians, members of Hizbollah or members of the Iranian polity and government simply don't exist.

    Why? Not because they are racist and assume that these folks are like children (though some do) but more because those behaviors are inconvenient to the cause and so, they simply ignore them because if they dealt with them then they would actually have to consider their own conflicted ideals. It's much easier to just assume that they don't exist.

    1. I remember watching the BBC flagship programme 'Question Time' just following 9/11, where the studio audience's response to the US ambassador pushed him to the edge of tears. It was truly awful. And indicative of how normalised the progressive left's hatred of America ( and all things western) was. They could muster no sympathy for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It was all about how America deserved it.

      They were not much different when London was attacked 7/7.

      Question Time episode still available on youtube, I think.

    2. As for Kos, I tend to go by the definition of "anti-Semite" as someone who repeats certain classic themes that have traditionally led to violence against Jews.

      By that standard, he is no anti-Semite, although I certainly agree that he enables anti-Semitism. He just strikes me as indifferent to the phenomenon because he has no flesh in the game and probably does not understand the ways in which hyper-criticism of Israel bleeds into anti-Zionism and bigotry against Jews.

      As for the root cause(s) of their condescension toward people "of color," VB makes a significant point when he alludes to anti-Americanism and "sticking it to the Man."

      I would point out, however, that the great majority of progressives who may despise Israel, don't necessarily despise the US. Some do, definitely, but many others would say that they love the US, which is why they criticize it so harshly. They want the US to live up to the values of democracy, anti-imperialism, and anti-racism. They don't see themselves, most of them, as trying to tear down the US, but rather to build it up in their own image. That is certainly the way that I used to feel.

      When we marched against the war in Iraq, and even the war in Afghanistan, we did so, most of us, not out of malice toward the US, but out of an impassioned sense that American could do a much better job of living up to its own values.

      In any case, humanitarian racism is evident whenever people refuse to hold non-white people to the same standards that they do hold white people. That's essentially the very definition of humanitarian racism. And, needless to say - as I assume that you guys would agree - there is no mutual exclusivity between humanitarian racism and anti-Americanism.

      On the contrary, they go together like peas and carrots.

    3. I've still gotta find that episode and watch it. Hadn't even heard of it until you mentioned it recently.

      I was pretty 'hard left' at the time (I had voted for Ralph Nader for president the year before, though I was in solidly-Democratic New Jersey at the time; if I was living in Pennsylvania or another 'swing state,' I'm sure I would have swallowed hard and gone for Gore), myself. Though in my defense, I was also only 22.

      But even then, I couldn't imagine acting like those people you describe.

      My father was supposed to be in one of the towers for a meeting that morning. Fortunately, it was cancelled a couple weeks prior, and he would have been on one of the lower floors anyway, so certainly would have gotten out fine, but still pretty unsettling.

      It's interesting how so many 'peace activists' are actually all for war and death and terror, when it comes down to it, as long as it's directed / committed against the very societies which make it possible for them to be so 'radical.'

    4. It is the anti-Western orientation that makes these people humanitarian racists. They refuse to hold wrongdoers responsible for their acts because they are incapable of exercising agency in the face of Western act ions.

      Not to mention that they have little clue about human nature because they project their narcissism as how it should be for all.

      I would point out, however, that the great majority of progressives who may despise Israel, don't necessarily despise the US. Some do, definitely, but many others would say that they love the US, which is why they criticize it so harshly. They want the US to live up to the values of democracy, anti-imperialism, and anti-racism. They don't see themselves, most of them, as trying to tear down the US, but rather to build it up in their own image.

      Implicit is that they do not like America as it is. Most cannot tell you when America ever lived up to the IMAGE they have. They cannot accept that America has been a force for good, and compared to what others do and have done we stand high on the list, even with our flaws.

      Progressive theories of how to run things have often worked poorly and proved destructive. Science has limits and to impose it on social matters easily slips to authoritarianism.

  9. Sorry, that link appears to be out of date.
    This one looks like it's working.

    Should find Question time 9/11 episode divided into three segments.
    It is awful.

    1. Thanks, looks like it's working. I see parts two and three on the sidebar, as well. I'm gonna try to watch them tonight.

    2. 2001 was just before the blogs and social media began to take off, of course, so I don't think I was ever really exposed to any of the ugliness of this sort.

      I vaguely recall reading an ugly piece (or letter?) or two in The Nation, and maybe The New Yorker, in the direct aftermath of the attacks, but for the most part, such voices were either successfully marginalized, or they knew better than to speak up in such a manner at the time.

      If the blogs were around back then, perhaps I would have realized a lot of things about certain types of people much sooner than I did.

    3. Jay

      I'd be really interested to hear what you think when you've watched it.
      I was very much 'on the left ' when 9/11 happened. I knew there was a lot of anti- American feeling in Britain, particularly on the left, but was shocked when this programme aired. Partly what's so awful, is that the BBC organised the audience and questions to achieve this sort of result. Unfortunately, it's very much in keeping with their own in-house worldview.
      Trust in mainstream media in the US is very low. Here in the UK, the BBC commands an enormous trust and affection from the public. They are the nation's broadcaster. People pay their licence fee. They are in everyone's homes. Their influence is immeasurable.

    4. Okay, watched it. I'm sure I missed a few things as a result of the sound quality and the generally useless captions, but whoa. That was really... something else.

      I honestly don't know what to make of it beyond that. I'm trying to put myself back into the contemporary frame of mind of that time.

      It seems that the general feeling was that nothing much should have been done because... Iraq, Palestine, something about mothers and fathers, al-Shifa, America Bad, Bin Laden is bad too BUT, Israel terrorists, blah blah blah.

      And we should have "woken up to what we're doing in the Middle East," and "looked at ourselves to see why we're so despised by the world."


      Especially rich was the guy who suggested that we should have opened up a dialogue with Al Qaeda(!), and worked towards negotiations (about what?) and trying to understand them.

      I hope that guy in the stars & stripes tie around the 10:00 mark of part 1 made it out okay. "I don't appreciate the gentleman in the American tie!", the angry woman next to him shrieked.

      As an aside, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown makes me appear to be a focused, non-rambling person. She got pretty mad at the guy at the very end who noted that none of them would be sitting there doing what they were doing without the sacrifices of British and American troops, didn't she?

    5. Yes- it's pretty unpleasant stuff.

      Re Yasmin Alibhai- Brown being somewhat unfocused:

      This links to one of her more rambling, mendacious and inflammatory articles in the Independent.

      Plus a response from Douglas Murray.

    6. Wow.

      "Once again at weddings and birthday parties, in quiet, tranquil mosques, at dinner tables across the land, including those of millionaire Muslims, I am hearing murmurs of trepidation and disquiet -- voices kept low, sometimes vanishing into whispers, just in case; you never know if they will break down the door."

      Yeah, I'm sure life for Muslims in the UK today is just like things were for Anne Frank's family.

      Excuse me while I go roll my eyes for a week.

  10. Mike and Jay... thanks for getting back to me. SO... the thing is that I come from a very different perspective than you guys. While I have always been Left of Center I have always been more of a moderate, even when I was younger. I voted for Gore, though I really liked Bill and thought Gore's distancing himself was a mistake. I did not oppose Afghanistan and while my support for Iraq "switched" to non-support after I realized that the Bush Administration had no clue as to what it was doing, I was not against them removing Sadaam Huessein. I mean my first election was supporting John Anderson (not Carter and for sure not Ronnie Ray-gun).

    While I don't think there is mutual exclusivity on "humanitarian racism" and anti-Americanism, I don't think that "humanitarian racism" (which I def. admit exists) is the driving cause for the push on DKos or other parts of the Left in support of Iran. I think it is sheer anti-Americanism (which btw, people do have the right to be anti-American in our society - I just wish they would be honest about it) that drives the commentary there. Further, I find it odd that a guy like Moulitsas, who served the U.S. as a member of the Armed Forces would be the face of page like that. But hey... each to his/her own.

    Jay, I think your last paragraph hits the "nail on the head" with regards to many so-called "peace activists". I think that many would be hard pressed to defend their "anti-War" credentials when most call for or support / justify armed struggle against the West in their regions of interest.

    1. Oh fer sure there is a huge amount of ant-Americanism; thus the weird love for Iran, Putin etc. Residual Communism has always been my best guess. Makes sense given progressivism's roots and the fact they had to go somewhere.

    2. But Iran isn't Communist, not by any stretch of the imagination. It is a Theocratic, Proto Fascist state. I would say that for the DKos crowd, many really just dislike America either from a Libertarian (Paulist) perspective or from a hard leftist perspective.

      It seems like those that were on the Hard Left just either went harder (The Maoists) or went Hard Right or simply goofy Libertarian. I would say that DKos is going from being a left of mainstream site to being a full on nutjob site ala Firedoglake.

      But that is just my take on it.

    3. Well, nutjob and dKos do kinda fit together.

    4. I wish I could go back and talk to Young Jay. For a lot(!) of reasons, but mainly for the purposes of our discussion, to 1) slap myself for voting for Ralph Nader for president (there's an idea for a brutally frightening, dystopian alternative-history novel!), and 2) to quiz myself to see how 'hard left' I really was.

      I was probably less further left than I felt I was, especially since I came from a Republican family and all. I vaguely recall mock elections in school, and it must have been '88, when I was 9 years old, I was just one of maybe three out of a class of 30 or so who 'voted' for George H.W. Bush. Of course at that age, 'your' politics are those of your parents. By '92, my mother took me to a Bush campaign rally somewhere in NJ that year, but by then I definitely recall thinking that I would have voted for the cool guy playing the sax on Arsenio. I missed out on the '96 election by a year, but I'm sure I would have voted for Clinton, mainly to piss my parents off. Heh.

      I was certainly to the Left of the mainstream Democratic Party by the late 90s / early aughts, and I checked off all the Chomsky / Zinn / etc boxes, subscribed to The Nation and The Progressive. Definitely thought / supported some pretty stupid things, I'm sure.

      But I didn't oppose going into Afghanistan at the time, actually. I did strongly oppose going into Iraq, however.

      But anyway!

    5. (Hell, I was gonna become a cop, until meningitis took a chunk of my hearing away at 19, after all... I couldn't have been that 'radical'!)

    6. If you're interested - and haven't read it;
      there's a really good book about how the liberal left ( British, but not exclusively) lost its way. "What's Left" by Nick Cohen. He's still very much on the left and has taken an enormous amount of flak and general denouncing for writing this. In the book he starts by making a ( very informed and persuasive) case for the removal of Saddam Hussein. You don't have to agree with it to find it compelling. And he goes on to an analysis of where the left have lost hold of almost everything they are supposed to believe in. It came as a huge shock to him to discover the antisemitism on the left. He's not Jewish, but his father's family was some time ago. It's a really interesting read. A polemic. Well worth reading.

    7. Thanks for the reminder, I've been meaning to read that for a few years now.

  11. dKos LOVVVVVEEEESSSSSS J-Street, right?

    "Guess who is speaking at the annual J-Street conference?

    PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat!

    Yes, the same Saeb Erekat who recently compared Israel to ISIS.

    The same Saeb Erekat who routinely accuses Israel of "genocide."

    The same Saeb Erekat who claimed that 96% of those killed in Gaza were civilians.

    The same Saeb Erekat who claimed that his family had been in Palestine for 9000 years (they came from Jordan in the 19th century.)"

  12. J Street had abandoned any notion of being particularly Pro-Israel when they sponsored speaking engagements of David Harris Gershon, over a year ago.

    They may utter platitudes of support but their actions simply don't match their words.

    I can see having Erekat speak, but not as a presenter. I can see him speaking as part of a panel discussing the Peace Talks because while Erekat is a fairly noxious guy, he IS the main Palestinian negotiator.

    BUT if he is simply giving a presentation... then I am not sure why in the hell that someone ever thought that was a good idea. Heck, if they are going to do that then why not bring in Hamas as well, after all they are actually the ones leading in every Palestinian Opinion Poll.

    I used to support J Street. I don't anymore. Now.. really the only people that support what I think live in Israel (because I really don't support AIPAC and I def. don't support ZOA or ECI) , and maybe they will win the election coming up (I support Buji / Livni but I can also get behind Lapid or Kahalon because first and foremost I care about social and economic issues there), so I figure that counts for something

  13. In other news:

    The British organisation, the Islamic Human Rights Commission, decided to give their international " Islamophobe of the year" award to the Charlie Hebdo staff.

    1. Yeah, that was absolutely disgusting. Here's hoping this serves as a(nother) wake-up call to more people who are beginning to finally see through these leading 'Islamophobia'-mongers, for exactly what they are. The troubling thing is that groups like this and Cage were so confident in the first place, that they were able to score such own goals.

  14. In other news, what about the promotion of Malley?

    1. Re Malley, this link is really helpful:

  15. Y'all want something interesting to do for a second.... Go to this website:

    It's in Hebrew, so if you don't know or don't remember Hebrew you can just cut and paste using Google Translate. First you answer 24 questions and then prioritize Social / Economic, Defense, and Religious as priorities... and it will tell you who they suggest you vote for. REMEMBER - Hebrew is Right to Left so when you cut and paste keep that in mind. And then your choices below are Agree on the Right to disagree on the Left (referring to side of the screen not political orientation).

    I got exactly what I thought I would get: Herzog first (I agreed with his position 88%), then Lapid (who I agreed with 77%) and then Moshe Kahalon (66%) and I prioritized Social / Economic concerns first, Defense second, and Religious third.

    It's an interesting exercise and my Israeli friends are all over it on FB. That is what turned me on to it.

    1. I couldn't get translate to read the notes on priority so it is (in no particular order)

      Kahalon, Herzog, Lieberman

    2. Kahlon 81%, Lapid 72%, Herzog 72%.

      I chose defense first, social / economic second and religious third. Would have flipped priorities one and two if it was an American poll.

      Btw, you spelled "youze" wrong... ;-P

  16. The Priorities from Left to right were Economic / Social, Security, and Religious